Post-marriage relationships can negate criminal charges related to elopement or sexual offenses, recognizing the abuse of legal process in continuation of proceedings against married couples.

JUDGMENT

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Leave granted.

Aim of all legal proceedings is to arrive at justice, a meaningful and substantive. In some cases, the justice is done by bringing home the outcome in accordance with law, whereas in some matters, the action in law would deserve to be halted soon and terminated discontinuing the process, yielding to the legitimate demand of facts and warrant of circumstances.

2. Heard learned counsel Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran along with learned advocate-on-record Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay appearing for the appellants and learned counsel Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat along with learned advocate-on-record Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat for the respondents.

2.1 Ayyub Malik-appellant No.1 herein and Shahzadi-appellant No.2 herein, who are husband and wife, have filed this appeal addressing the challenge to judgment and order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, whereby the High Court dismissed Criminal Misc. Application No.566 of 2021 filed by appellant No.1, which was an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Hereinafter, “Cr.PC.”] seeking to quash the charge-sheet, summoning order and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.10 of 2021.

3. First Information Report [Hereinafter, “FIR”] No.0239 of 2020 came to filed on 01.06.2020 at Gangnahar Police Station, Haridwar by the complainant-respondent No.2 herein, who happens to be the father of appellant No.2. The complainant’s case in the FIR was that his daughter named Shehzadi-appellant No.2 whose age was stated to be 17 years, went missing from the house on 24.05.2020 at around 6 o’clock. Despite strenuous search, the daughter was not found. The complainant stated that he was informed by one Vaseen Sakur that he saw Shehzadi going with Ayyub Malik-appellant No.1 of village Saliyar. It was alleged in the FIR that appellant No.1 enticed the daughter of the complainant and took her away.

3.1 The Competent Court took cognizance on 07.01.2021 and appellant No.1 was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 368, 376(2)(d) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Hereinafter, “ IPC ”] as well as under Sections 5 (8) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Hereinafter, “POCSO Act”]. The said FIR resulted into filing of Criminal Case No.10 of 2021 registered with the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, Haridwar [Hereinafter, “trial court”].

3.2 Appellant No.1 filed Criminal Misc. Application No.566 of 2021 before the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. seeking to get the said criminal proceedings quashed.

3.3 What was submitted before the High Court by appellant No.1 was inter-alia that he and the daughter of respondent No.2, that is the complainant, had married on 29.05.2020, before lodging of the FIR on 01.06.2020. The High Court reasoned that since the State had stated in its counter affidavit that the victim was minor at the time of alleged incident and that the submissions raised on behalf of the applicant could not be considered without leading of evidence, refused to quash the proceedings.

3.4 Calling in question the judgment and order of the High Court, the present appeal has been preferred by appellant Nos.1 and 2 jointly. It is the case of both the appellants that both of them were in relationship of love with each other since long. It was stated that as there was an opposition from their family members, appellant Nos.1 and 2 ran away from their house and got married on 25.09.202